Engaging Knowledge Diversity/Introduction

For the Portuguese version of this introduction, see Promovendo a Diversidade de Conhecimento: Introdução a um Documento Vivo. In recent debates around open scholarship, there is an increasing focus not only in making research outputs more openly accessible but also in ensuring that there is a more diverse and equitable participation in knowledge production in terms of geography, language, and scholars’ positionality. This perspective seeks to increase and encourage knowledge diversity, an epistemological stance which recognizes the legitimacy and value of a wide range of ways of knowing while also challenging power dynamics that cause some ways of knowing to be considered more legitimate or valuable than others. It is an alternative and oppositional perspective to that which has dominated western academia (Rowell and Feldman), and it affirms the intellectual value of knowledge that is localized, culturally embedded, co-produced, and rooted in lived experience. This challenge to Western notions of knowledge production has been addressed for decades by scholars in the Global South and in some areas of the humanities, such as Indigenous studies, oral history, and cultural materialism in literary studies. A range of projects have also contributed to these debates, from large-scale multinational projects such as SciELO and the Public Knowledge Project, to projects with a more local scale such as Crunk Feminist Collective, Black Beyond Data, the Community Archives Lab, among many others. However, these discussions around which knowledges are considered valuable, who gets to produce knowledge, and which voices are listened to are now intensifying across multiple disciplines, including political science (Wilmer), sociology (Moosavi), environmental studies (Amano et al.), media studies (Chakravartty et al.; Poell et al.), and in the field of open scholarship and scholarly communication in particular (Pinfield; Beigel; Eve and Gray). One important moment in open scholarship and scholarly communication that highlighted the importance of knowledge diversity was the publication of the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science in 2021. This document defined open science as “an inclusive construct that combines various movements and practices aiming to make multilingual scientific knowledge openly available, accessible and reusable for everyone, [...] and to open the processes of scientific knowledge creation, evaluation and communication to societal actors beyond the traditional scientific community” (UNESCO 7). Open science also builds on several key pillars relevant to knowledge diversity, such as open scientific knowledge, open science infrastructures, science communication, open engagement of societal actors and open dialogue with other knowledge systems (UNESCO). Because of this increasing concern in multilingualism, connections with societal actors, and dialogue with multiple knowledge systems, we created this living document to highlight sources and initiatives that address these concerns, which can be grouped under the idea of knowledge diversity. Barriers Preventing Knowledge Diversity The debates and projects addressing knowledge diversity happen in a context that increasingly recognizes that knowledge is mediated and influenced by sociocultural factors such as language, technology, and identity (Pinfield). Therefore, knowledge is not universal nor objective, characteristics usually assigned to Western knowledge. Instead, knowledge is situated, which means that it is influenced by the material and social conditions of the person and communities producing knowledge. Because knowledge is situated historically and geographically, increasing the diversity of the people contributing to knowledge can address the gaps of existing knowledge and increase our understanding of different topics by providing new or different perspectives. Research has even found that scholars’ positionalities influence the topic they study (Xiang et al.). However, there are multiple barriers that can prevent more diverse participation and, in turn, reinforce existing hierarchies that tend to devalue certain kinds of knowledges (e.g., those that are not disseminated in English, developed with societal actors, or based on lived experience, place, and relationships). Language is one such barrier to participation in knowledge production. The current scholarly communication system tends to value research and scholarship published in English over any other language. When English is used as the common language (lingua franca) of research, this can create barriers for non-native-English speakers who find they need to spend more time conducting tasks such as reading literature or disseminating research (Amano et al.). In addition, some concepts and theories that exist in particular languages cannot be accurately conveyed in English unless they are “domesticated” by removing or erasing the cultural background and worldviews of the original language (Suzina). Because of the importance of language in conveying culture and worldviews, multilingualism is a key component of knowledge diversity. Linguistic barriers to knowledge production also tend to fall along geographic lines. Several countries in the Global South do not have English as their first or official language, yet the expectations often baked into tenure and promotion criteria regard publications in English more highly. This places a burden on researchers in these countries, as demonstrated in myriad cases where high-caliber research completed by an African author on “a pressing topic for the African continent was rejected by a Global North journal because reviewers and editors deemed the topic outside their scope of interest” (Kaliuzhna et al. 2025, 13). In addition to linguistic barriers, traditional modes of scholarly dissemination can introduce further barriers to knowledge diversity. For example, some Indigenous knowledges and research rely on oral traditions, so they cannot be easily shared in a written format online or in academic journals. Additionally, many Indigenous communities have several access conditions when sharing knowledge, which is why projects such as the Traditional Knowledge Labels provide more specific protocols for accessing and using cultural heritage circulating digitally outside of Indigenous communities (Local Contexts). Community-based research also faces barriers due to the traditional modes of scholarly production and dissemination. Academic jargon reinforces power differentials in community research (Banks et al.) and “elite actors” such as governments, researchers, and governments tend to have more influence in shaping the research scope and process (Turnhout et al.). While there are many successful cases of community-based research, some of which are annotated in this document, unequal power relations are ongoing issues that must be taken into account when looking to build connections with communities outside academia. These barriers to knowledge production contribute to a homogenization of knowledge practices to fit a narrow definition of what constitutes valid knowledge. The calls for increasing knowledge diversity encourage us to reflect on the types of knowledges and perspectives that are excluded by prioritizing one single form of knowledge that is in English and published exclusively by academics. Increasing knowledge diversity, in terms of the communities and languages that contribute to knowledge, can help reveal and address the biases in our knowledge and provide alternative perspectives in several areas. Therefore, knowledge diversity is a topic with implications beyond scholarly communication or even higher education more generally because it also affects how knowledge is put into practice. About the Research Scan Within this context of reconfiguration and discussions around the politics of knowledge production, the Knowledge Diversity scan, with its 100+ annotations, is a living document that aims to introduce readers to concepts, debates, and initiatives in the field of knowledge diversity. The aim of this document is to detail the historic and present challenges people have faced in their capacity as knowers and to highlight ways of knowing that are often disregarded as illegitimate for lacking rigor or intellectual value according to Eurocentric epistemological frameworks that systemically devalue and dismiss Indigenous knowledges and research that is community-based or published in languages other than English. This collection has been crafted to not only cover core concepts related to knowledge diversity but to also reflect the values and principles embedded in it. The scan includes a variety of sources, including traditional academic articles, blog posts, websites, and videos. The editors made a conscious effort to include pieces that were not heavily dominated by jargon or technical terms. Sources that are foundational to their respective field that do employ such language were included in this scan, and brief definitions of such terms were provided either within the annotation or in the separate “Definitions” subsections for each respective theme. The sources selected come from a wide range of disciplines, including philosophy, Indigenous studies, library and information science, digital humanities, and education. Rather than selecting sources from particular disciplines, we chose texts and projects that address some aspect of knowledge diversity, as this is an increasing concern across multiple disciplines and beyond the walls of the university. This collection is intended to be a resource for academic and non-academic audiences. It may be especially valuable for librarians, community activists, citizen scholars, educators, community-based researchers, and anyone else seeking to make their research more community-engaged. We call this collection a living document because these debates are ongoing. This form of publication recognizes that achieving knowledge diversity is an ongoing struggle, not a finalized process. We also hope to encourage further engagement with this text by inviting readers to contribute via digital annotation, translations, or by developing further versions with updated sources. The Knowledge Diversity living document weaves together a breadth of topics that are connected through their commitment to making space for a variety of ways of knowing. The selected resources are divided into five themes: Epistemic Injustice, Bibliodiversity, Indigenous Knowledges, Community Knowledge and Co-Inquiry, and Steps Towards Knowledge Equity. Each theme is divided into three sections: Definitions, Resources, and Initiatives and Organizations. For select themes, the Resource section has been broken down into further topics (i.e., Epistemic Injustice is broken down into a Core Concepts subsection and an Epistemic Injustice Across Areas of Study subsection). These five themes have a long history of addressing knowledge diversity, however, they are not always considered in conjunction to highlight the connections and tensions between these approaches. For example, bibliodiversity discussions are usually in favor of open access initiatives, while Indigenous knowledges are plural and, as such, consist of several different perspectives and limitations regarding the knowledge that can be shared outside of the community. Therefore, the resources selected for each theme demonstrate that there are multiple, contrasting approaches for achieving knowledge diversity. Overview of Sections The first section, Epistemic Injustice, sets the foundation for understanding the various ways knowledge systems and knowledge holders have been and are currently disregarded as unreliable due to prejudicial factors. At its most fundamental level, epistemic injustices are the wrongs done to someone in their capacity as a knower (Fricker, 2007). Building on the foundational work of Miranda Fricker, the articles included in this section explore a range of mechanisms through which communities are wronged in their capacity as producers of knowledge and receivers of knowledge. The section explores epistemic injustice from multiple perspectives, including a disability perspective, trans* perspective, intersectional perspective, and feminist perspective. It also addresses how epistemic injustice can manifest in several spaces, such as data science technologies, scholarly communication, and social media. The Bibliodiversity section explores the meaning behind this term and surveys a variety of strategies and proposals for fostering greater diversity in the publishing and scholarly communications ecosystem. The term, largely regarded as originating from independent Chilean publishers in the 1990s (Hawthorne, 2014), applies the core concepts of biodiversity to the world of publishing. In the foreword to the first issue of Bibliodiversity, Étienne Galliand (2011) describes bibliodiversity as the capacity of the publishing industry to produce diversity, especially regarding the diversity of epistemological stances (Hawthorne, 2014), languages, and publishing infrastructures (Shearer et al. 2020). Authors working on bibliodiversity critique the hegemony of English in scholarly communication (Beigel and Gallardo 2021; Rovelli 2021; Snijder 2022) for preventing the publication of scholarship on local issues, furthering the commercialization of knowledge, and excluding the contributions of authors from the Global South. Therefore, this section also surveys strategies, initiatives, and proposals striving for greater bibliodiversity, multilingualism, and more robust research evaluation metrics. The Indigenous Knowledges section introduces the core principles of Indigenous Knowledge systems, the problems with how western knowledge traditions have characterized and attempted to erase Indigenous Knowledges, and Indigenous research methodologies. This section has been divided into two subsections: Core Concepts and Indigenous Research Methods. We talk about knowledges in plural to avoid homogenizing diverse Indigenous knowledges and methodologies, as the definitions and initiatives discussed in this section are grounded in the ways of knowing of each community. While developing this section of the research scan, differences in terminology across geographic location and time emerged as a core challenge. After much discussion, our team made the decision to default to the terminology used by the source to accurately represent the author’s work. This means that out-of-date terminology has been used in places; these terms have been placed in quotation marks upon first use. All instances of the term “Indigenous” and its derivatives have been capitalized. The Community Knowledge and Co-Inquiry section offers insight into the underlying values of co-inquiry, best practices for community-based research projects, and the historical, social, political, and economic challenges of research that engage academic and “non-academic” actors. By combining theoretical scholarship on co-inquiry and specific case studies of co-inquiry projects, this section examines specific research strategies for community-based and participatory action research while placing them in their broader social context. The Steps Towards Knowledge Equity section is explicitly action-oriented and focuses on practices that can be implemented to promote inclusion of a variety of ways of knowing. Annotated resources describe practical approaches to challenging dominant epistemologies and addressing systemic biases that exclude the knowledges of minorities in several spaces. Examples of these approaches include the creation of safe spaces for collective memory work (Blanco Borelli and Sorzano 2021), reflecting on whose ideas are legitimized through citations (Mott and Cockayne 2017; Carlier et al. 2022), and highlighting African Indigenous knowledge systems through critical digital pedagogy (Gonye and Moyo 2023). This section is divided into three parts: Knowledge Equity in Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums (GLAM); Knowledge Equity in Research Methodology and Sharing; and Knowledge Equity in Education. This wide range of topics shows the complexity of valuing diverse ways of knowing and challenging Eurocentric epistemological perspectives within and beyond academia. The efforts highlighted in the collection to generate localized, culturally embedded, and/or co-produced knowledge show that there is not one universally valid way of knowing, but rather that there are multiple forms of advancing understanding. While it is far from an exhaustive list of initiatives in knowledge diversity, this collection seeks to inspire readers to reflect on their assumptions about which knowledges are valuable and to encourage further action to address epistemic injustices, promote knowledge equity, and rethink who are considered legitimate knowers. Epistemic Injustice